The Middle Way Part 3

 

The Middle Way Part Three

Different tracks, same path

Several spiritual and philosophical traditions echo the spirit of Taoism and Zen Buddhism, sharing emphases on direct experience, non-striving (akin to wu wei), non-duality, simplicity, harmony with the natural order, and transcending conceptual thinking. While none are identical—each carries its own cultural flavor and soteriological aim—they often feel like kindred voices speaking from different mountaintops about the same ineffable valley.

Within the Eastern traditions, the closest relatives include:

•  Advaita Vedanta (non-dual Hinduism):

This school, most famously articulated by Shankara, teaches the radical non-duality of Atman (true self) and Brahman (ultimate reality), dissolving the illusion of separation between subject and object. Like Zen’s leap into emptiness and Taoism’s embrace of the undifferentiated Tao, Advaita points to direct realisation beyond words and concepts. Practices such as self-inquiry (“Who am I?”) mirror Zen’s koan work and the Taoist suspicion of over-intellectualisation. Yet Advaita retains a more metaphysical framework, affirming an eternal ground of being, whereas Zen often cuts through even that affirmation to pure suchness.

•  Dzogchen (Great Perfection) in Tibetan Buddhism: This pinnacle teaching of the Nyingma school (and echoed in Bön) emphasises the primordial, self-liberating nature of mind—rigpa—already perfect and unobscured. It stresses resting in naked awareness without fabrication, very close to Zen’s “just sitting” and Taoism’s wu wei. Like Zen, it aims at sudden recognition rather than gradual cultivation; like Taoism, it celebrates the spontaneous perfection of what already is. Many practitioners note the family resemblance: effortless presence, non-dual wakefulness, and freedom from striving.

Other Eastern currents resonate more loosely:

•  Certain strands of Theravada Buddhism (especially in its emphasis on bare insight and equanimity) share Zen’s austerity and directness, though without the same Taoist infusion of natural flow.

•  Sufism (Islamic mysticism), particularly in figures like Rumi or Ibn Arabi, speaks of annihilation in the divine (fana) and effortless union, paralleling non-dual action and surrender to the greater flow.

In the West, parallels appear more fragmentary but striking:

•  Stoicism (especially the later Roman form in Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Seneca) cultivates acceptance of what cannot be controlled, living in accord with nature (physis), and acting with inner tranquility amid externals. Its emphasis on virtue through non-resistance echoes wu wei and Zen’s equanimity, though Stoicism remains more rational and duty-oriented.

•  Aspects of Process philosophy (Alfred North Whitehead) or phenomenology (Heidegger’s later thought on “letting-be” or Gelassenheit) gesture toward flowing with being rather than mastering it.

•  Modern Perennial Philosophy thinkers (Aldous Huxley, Ken Wilber) often group Taoism, Zen, Advaita, and Sufism together as expressions of a universal non-dual insight.

Ultimately, these traditions form a loose constellation rather than a single lineage. Taoism flows downstream with the river of nature; Zen cuts directly to the other shore through radical inquiry; Advaita and Dzogchen dissolve the questioner into the questioned. What unites them is the invitation to cease grasping, rest in what is, and discover that the sought-after freedom was never absent. In their shared silence—beyond East or West—the Tao, the Dharma, rigpa, Brahman simply is.